Letter: Any ‘morality’ claim requires honest assessment of context

When attempting to resolve credit/debt issues, one logically pays off the sum bearing the highest rate first. Plug the biggest holes first, deal with the major issue first, stop the bleeding – then comb your hair, etc. While his perspective deems meat-eating tacit endorsement of production methods found objectionable, on what great emotional reserve will you draw to share similar angst for the blatant, long-time, worldwide sexual child abuse by Catholic clergy and the corresponding winking and shuffling by the church management?

Any thesis arising from and promoted by a faith perspective must be consistent with the broader teachings of that faith. Any relationship one has with his surroundings remains his own business. But the whole situation was seriously clouded when Eve and Adam decided they were smarter than God. Ever since, death in all its forms and degrees has tainted man’s relationship with his existence.

Now comes the need for profit. When one is required to pay his own way, preference must yield, or enterprise cease. If one uses or appreciates electricity, he must logically tolerate generating plants, either water or fuel (coal/gas). Personal transportation requires other concessions.

One’s argument against a topic is weakened greatly by using the objectionable to attend the meeting or voice said objection. Camosy’s claim that livestock methane production exceeds that from internal combustion engines could use some validation, and remember that simply saying so doesn’t make it so. “Studies” can “prove” anything one wishes.

Thanks for his concern, and for regarding his faith seriously enough to affect his views and life (some assumption there). Just remember that doing is more significant and much more difficult than saying. And saying for others is so much easier than doing for one’s self.